When students don’t apply the knowledge you think they have, rethink your assumptions about transfer

Making the Connection: Research and Teaching in Undergraduate Mathematics Education

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 289-304

  Lobato, Joanne ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049440431     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.5948/UPO9780883859759.023     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4\(2), 167–207.
2. Barnett, S., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4) 612–637.
3. Beach, K. D. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, (Vol. 26, pp. 101–140). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
5. Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), (1–24).
6. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
7. Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D.K. Detterman & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Ellis, A. B., & Grinstead, P. (2007). Hidden lessons: How a focus on slope-like properties of quadratic functions encouraged unexpected generalizations. Manuscript under review.
9. Ellis, A. B., & Lobato, J. (2004, April). Using the construct of “focusing phenomena” to explore links between attentional processes and “transfer” in mathematics classrooms. In J. Lobato (Chair), Attentional processes, salience, and “transfer” of learning: Perspectives from neuroscience, cognitive science, and mathematics education. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
10. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., Hosp, M., & Jancek, D. (2003). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 293–305.
11. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–7.
13. Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B.B. (1997). Unifying cognitive and sociocultural aspects in research on learning the function concept. In E. Pehkkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 148–164). Lahti, Finland: University of Helsinki.
14. Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Editors’ introduction. In D. Kirshner, & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in every day life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Lobato, J. (1996). Transfer reconceived: How “sameness” is produced in mathematical activity. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 9723086.
17. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.
18. Lobato, J. (2005, August). Attention-focusing and the “transfer” of learning. In J. Emanuelsson & M. F. Pang (Chairs), Contrasting different perspectives on the object of learners´ attention. An invited SIG symposium conducted at the 11th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Nicosia, Cyprus.
19. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues, and challenges for future research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.
20. Lobato, J. (in press). Research methods for alternative approaches to transfer: Implications for design experiments. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), Design research in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Lobato, J., Clarke, D., & Ellis, A. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 101–136.
22. Lobato, J., & Ellis, A.B. (2002). The focusing effect of technology: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 297–314.
23. Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Munoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment afford students’ generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 1–36.
24. Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in a reconceived view of transfer. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(1), 87–116.
25. Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (1999). Re-thinking slope from quantitative and phenomenological perspectives. In F. Hitt, & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 291–297). Columbus, OH: ERIC.
26. Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2002). Developing understanding of ratio as measure as a foundation for slope. In B. Litwiller (Ed.) Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions: 2002 Yearbook (pp. 162–175). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
27. MacKay, D. (1969). Information, mechanism, and meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Marton, F. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2003). Classroom discourse and the space of Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. McKeough, A., Lupart, L., & Marini, A. (Eds.). (1995). Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. National Research Council, Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. (2000). Learning and transfer. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Exp. ed., pp. 51–78). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. Olive, J., & Lobato, J. (in press). The learning of rational number concepts using technology. In M. K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
32. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Leadership, 18(1), 16–25.
33. Roschelle, J., & Kaput, J. (1996). SimCalc MathWorlds for the mathematics of change. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 97–99.
34. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A.A. (1996). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Volume 4 (pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Schroeder, T. L., & Lester, F.K. (1989). Developing understanding in mathematics via problem solving. In P.R. Trafton (Ed.), New directions for elementary school mathematics (pp. 31–42). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
36. Simon, M., & Blume, G. (1994). Mathematical modeling as a component of understanding ratio-as-measure: A study of prospective elementary teachers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 183–197.
37. Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Principles of teaching. New York: A. G. Seiler.
38. Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Conceptual obstacles in the learning of quadratic functions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(1), 20–44.